Question

During her tenure as a manager at defendant Forklift Systems, Inc., plaintiff Harris was repeatedly insulted by defendant’s president because of her gender and subjected to sexual innuendos. In front of other employees, the president frequently told Harris, “You’re just a woman, what do you know?” He sometimes asked Harris and other female employees to remove coins from his pockets and made suggestive comments about their clothes. He suggested to Harris in front of others that they negotiate her salary at the Holiday Inn. He said that he would stop when Harris complained, but he continued behaving in the same manner, so Harris quit. She then filed an action against the defendant for creating an abusive work environment based on her gender.

The district court found in favor of the defendant, holding that some of the comments were offensive to the plaintiff, but were not so serious as to severely affect Harris’ psychological well-being or interfere with her work performance. The court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff Harris appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

JUSTICE O’CONNOR: As we made clear in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, this language [of Title VII] “is not limited to ‘economic’ or ‘tangible’ discrimination. The phrase ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ evinces a congressional intent ‘to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women’ in employment,” which includes requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. When the workplace is permeated with “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,” that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”

This standard, which we reaffirm today, takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury. As we pointed out in Meritor, “mere utterance of an … epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee,” does not sufficiently affect conditions of employment to implicate Title VII. … Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.

But Title VII comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. A discriminatorily abusive work environment, even one that does not seriously affect employees’ psychological well-being, can and often will detract from employees’ job performance, discourage page 976employees from remaining on the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. Moreover, even without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality. The appalling conduct alleged in Meritor, and the reference in that case to environments “so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability of minority group workers,” merely presents some especially egregious examples of harassment. They do not mark the boundary of what is actionable.

… Certainly Title VII bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person’s psychological well-being, but the statute is not limited to such conduct. So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.

This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. But we can say that whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. The effect on the employee’s psychological well being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required.

REVERSED and REMANDED in favor of plaintiff.

CRITICAL THINKING

Identify the Court’s reasons. Do you think these reasons were sufficient to overturn the previous ruling? Why or why not?

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Imagine that Justice O’Connor is operating under a duty-based system of ethics. What duty is she advocating in terms of employer-employee relationships? Would this ruling serve well as a universal standard?

Answer 1

Though the lower courts have passed the judgments in favor of the defendant, the Supreme court has interpreted the provisions of the Title VII in right direction and protected the rights of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court was apt in considering the behavior of the defendant as violation of Title VII. There are at least three occasions in which the defendant has shown gender discrimination and in one occasion made a proposal for exchange of favor .i.e. the salary hike may be discussed in holiday inn. One of the critical interpretations of the court is that it has considered the frequency of the humiliation attempts as sufficient to conclude that the workplace environment was hostile. The statements of the defendant on several occasions indicate that they were not inadvertent sayings but are intended to inflict pain on the plaintiff. The decision of the court to reverse the earlier orders is correct.

When a person is working under duty-based system of ethics, he or she is required to act than to worry about the consequences. In the case of the Harris complaint of gender discrimination and use of abusive language, the duty based system of ethics is not relevant. An employee is supposed to do the jobs described in the respective job descriptions and other jobs that are reasonably acceptable. Even the though the vice president is the employer of the Harris, he cannot instruct the employees to do jobs that are beyond the range of jobs mentioned in the job description of the position. The statements made by the defendant were of personal nature, gender discrimination and had abusive content. The ruling provides an assertion of legitimate employer-employee relationship and demonstrates precise interpretation of laws related to protection of workplace rights.